Dismissed¶14

Tilakdhari v. Vivek and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025A227/417/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited/expeditious disposal of civil suit; direction to subordinate court within stipulated period; Article 226; Article 227; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaunpur; Suit No. 775 of 2018; Shobh Nath and others v. Vivek and others; Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB); Matters Under Article 227 No. 417 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; petition dismissed; order date 17.1.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:8081.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for; accordingly no direction is issued to the subordinate court for time-bound disposal of the suit. ¶13

Tilakdhari vs Vivek and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8081

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 417 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Tilakdhari Respondent :- Vivek And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma,Radhey Shyam Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"I. Issue an order or direction to the Court of civil judge (J.D.) A.M 5 New Court Jaunpur to decide the suit No. 775 of 2018 (Shobh Nath and others Vs. Vivek and others) within stipulated period."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Suit No. 775 of 2018, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), A.M 5 New Court, Jaunpur.

¶9

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

¶10

"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), DistrictAzamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

¶11

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.

¶12

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."

¶13

In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶14

The writ petitions is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2025 SK Goswami

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tilakdhari v. Vivek and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilakdhari v. Vivek and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Fill and Drive through Its Partner Samar Garg vs Shri Siya Ram Verma, Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicles Department

Chandra Bali vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Mira Mishra vs Sri Krishna Karunesh, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur

Shreya Singh Minor and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar vs Vidya Devi & 8 Others